lol i never thought that for a second. you guys are weird.

I have to see this again, because of all of the subtleties I probably missed.

Did anyone notice that Tarantino used Harvey Keitel and Samuel L Jackson to do voiceovers in the movie?

Samuel L Jackson narrated the flammable film scene, and Harvey Keitel played the voice of the person on the phone negotiating with Hans.

I could change my mind about certain things, when I rewatch the movie, without being tired because of my wisdom teeth painkillers and having parts of the movie interrupted by some guy getting in a fight with security. However parts like

I realized this when

probably not, but its hard to tell since he's character was a master of knowing everything and making people feel really uncomfortable.

this was just typical QT fun. The whole theater laughed their asses off at that part because of how silly it was. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Same. My friend and I were extra pumped as that actor has one of the best scenes in SLC Punk.

Complaining about this is like complaining that James Joyce uses stream of conscience too much or Picasso uses geometric shapes too much. It's the hallmark of their style. Of course they use it!

My criticism is his trademark has become formulaic instead of edgy and he is attempting to force his trademark into the film at the expense of quality.

good interview with waltz regarding landa
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42127

I did not pick up on that.

Who was hotter, Shosanna or Bridget?

I have to go with the frenchie.

I did not pick up on what the Brit did to give himself away. I assumed it was in that ballpark - "a German would never do X" - just had to wait for Kruger to explain the specifics.

yeah got that immediately /brag

also, took me awhile to realize where I knew the actor from (Christenson from Band of Brothers)

i thought that they might have given themselves away by drinking scotch

I think pretty much everyone would agree with you somewhat, but I think it's one of those signatures that just works really well and (almost) everyone eats it up every time. When I saw it the whole theatre seemed to love that part. I guess I just disagree that it hurt the quality of the movie at all.

There were some more subtle references to his other movies that were fun:
I can see how people might not like those self referential details and stuff like but I enjoy it.


I showed my girlfriend the Dollars trilogy recently and she said that she was very glad to have seen that before this. Again, maybe some don't like the homages to other films, but I find it pretty cool.


The first part really was very impressive. At first I'm sitting there like but then by the end I realize That was very cool.

I will definitely watch this many more times. I think one of the reasons that I and many others respond to Tarantino so well is that he seems to make watching movies a very different experience than normal and it happens to be exciting and a lot of fun.

Loved it.

Chapters 1, 2, and 5 were near perfect. I liked the middle ones but they weren't as great as those three. Like Clark said earlier, I'll need to see it again before I can see where it stacks up with Pulp Fiction, Resevior Dogs, and the two Kill Bills, but I thought it was awesome and it will end up somewhere behind Pulp Fiction and somewhere right with the other two of his films I mentioned.

yes be proud! and please explain to the rest of us, i'm still confused about that part =/

He signaled "three" the English way (pointer/middle/ring finger) instead of the German way (thumb/pointer/middle). Diane Kruger explained this when she was on the veterinarian's table.

I think he had an idea but did not really act on it.

Damn, the movie took in 14 million on Friday.